US Race Policy Was A Model For Hitler's Race Laws

An article on Facing South, looks at a German lawyer who spent a year studying business and American race laws at the University of Arkansas.  The article begins with a Berlin meeting, a beginning of the drafting of the Nuremberg Laws to suppress Jews and others and to protect the purity of German blood.

"At the meeting, several Nazi bureaucrats cited the work of a young lawyer named Heinrich Krieger, newly returned from his year studying abroad in the United States at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville. There, he researched how laws across the U.S. segregated and disenfranchised Native Americans, African Americans, and other non-white groups — a legal model the Nazis looked to as a way to control Jews and other minority groups in Germany. Inspiration for the Nuremberg Laws came directly from Krieger's research into American race laws, including prohibitions on interracial marriages.

'He was in Arkansas in the dead middle of the Jim Crow era,' Yale historian James Q. Whitman, author of "Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law," told Facing South. 'He seems to have taken an interest particularly in American Indian law.'

"Krieger's research cited at the Berlin meeting was a review of the history of American laws related to indigenous people, who had only recently been declared citizens under Calvin Coolidge’s Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. For centuries the law had treated them not only as non-citizens but as subhuman, subjecting them to the 19th century's violent Indian removal policies; the Trail of Tears (part of which ran through Fayetteville); the separation of indigenous children from their families, communities, language, and culture; and forced sterilization. Throughout the debates in Germany that led up to the adoption of the Nuremberg Laws by the Nazis in 1935, Nazi officials relied on Krieger's observations about the American laws that governed its brutal treatment of non-white people."

"In March 1935, after completing his studies in Fayetteville, Krieger published an article in the George Washington Law Review titled "Principles of the Indian Law and the Act of June 18, 1934." In it he observed, "[The] Indian, though being a national of the United States, was not her citizen." Nazi leaders were inspired by America's ability to treat marginalized populations as less than full citizens while still maintaining a positive global reputation, so they used Krieger's studies of American race laws as a template for their own."

There's more food for thought in the whole article. 

Republicans decry 'Critical Race Theory' as 'anti-American.' It's ironic.  On the one hand they are encouraging white nationalist fears of being 'replaced' by non-whites and non-Christians.

On the other hand, they get upset when people point out that US laws were racist, took Native American land, enslaved blacks and then after emancipation created law after law to recreate a form second-class citizenship.  

Some of these white nationalists use nazi materials as their models.  But, as the Facing South article demonstrates, they needn't.  Because the US was, in many ways, Hitler's model for how to take away citizenship from non-Aryans.  

Of course, all this is based on a human created fiction called race.  In the early 20th Century, race still referred, not only to the black and white races, but to Jewish race, Italian race, Irish race, and other non-Northern Europeans.  

Sure, there are physical differences between people with light skin and people with darker skin, just as there are differences between people with red hair and blond hair and brown hair.  Between people who are taller and those who are shorter, thinner and heavier, hairier and smoother, more athletic and more sedentary, more thoughtful and more prone to impulsive action.  

But there is nothing about light skinned people that makes them more or less human than people with darker shades of skin.  The power hungry have always exploited these physical differences to divide people who often have more in common with each other than with those dividing them.  

It's time to identify as part of humanity rather than some artificial construct like race.  

That isn't to say that we should abandon the the wide diversity of cultures and languages for one common one.  Each of those cultures and languages represents a group of people who learned to survive the physical and political conditions of the part of earth in which they lived.  Whether it's dealing with heat or cold, tropical or high elevation agriculture, ocean or desert.  Each culture has, embedded in its language and practices, survival techniques that at some point may be useful to the rest of humanity. Or may already be useful, but by designating some group as less worthy, we've overlooked what they know that could help us.  Destroying this huge repository of knowledge would be like burning libraries.  

Humans are in this together.  When we deprive one group, we make it harder for the people of that group to share their talents with the rest of the world.  When we spend our energy fighting each other, we aren't spending it making the world a better place.  Everyone is worse off.

Right now that contrast couldn't be clearer.  We've removed from office the president who has done the most to exploit those differences and set people against people.  Whose mission it was to destroy cooperative efforts among cultures around the world - like walking out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear deal.  

And now we have a president who is attempting to get people to build the infrastructure that makes human life easier and safer.  Who is promoting health and education and meaningful work for all people.  Who sees all people as human beings, not as a hierarchy of more and less valuable beings.  

Thoughts On Returning To The US After A Month In Argentina

I wrote this yesterday.

I’m over the Pacific just west of Acapulco, about three hours from landing in LA.  We’ve been out of the US for just over a month.  This is the longest stretch out of the US since  twelve years ago when we were in Thailand for three months where I worked as a volunteer with an NGO that helped poor farmers.  .  

As our return was nearing this last week, I began to think about Jews who traveled outside of Germany - or other countries the Nazis would take over - during the 1930s and then returned.  Many, if not most, ended up in concentration camps.  Should I seek political asylum in Argentina?  

No, I’m not a target.  Yet.  For now the targets are people with darker skin than mine.  Jews are in a strange never-never land.  They’re, as always, in the scopes of white nationalists/neo-Nazis, but the president’s son-in-law is Jewish and his daughter converted.  Being pro-Israel is a conservative thing now, probably because of strong Evangelical Christians support of Israel.  So, what happens to Jews who have serious questions about the way Israel is treating its Arab citizens and the neighboring Palestinians?  

But that’s an aside to the terror Trump is causing among Central American immigrants to the US.  This fear isn't unlike what Jews, LGBTQ folks, Communists, Romani, and others felt about the Gestapo arriving at their door.  You can say that they aren't intentionally killing people on the border, but that came later in Germany as well.  People just knew it was bad and they may not see their families again.  Same as now.  This fear affects more than those seeking asylum - a perfectly legal thing to do.  It includes those in the US without documentation, including all the dreamers, and those with papers who could find themselves targets anyway,  The same thing happened in Argentina in the 70s and 80s, and in Chile under Pinochet.  In the later two places the US was supporting the abusive governments.  

And I thought about all this as we lined up in Lima for our last leg of our trip home.  Nearly all the people with us on this plane are NOT native speakers.  I didn’t hear anyone speaking English.  It was all Spanish, maybe some Portuguese.  Many dark skinned people.  We’re on a Boeing 787-8. Maybe 300 people.  How many planes like this fly into the US everyday from the south?  

What does that say about Trump’s policies on the border?  And the ICE raids? (Yes, I realize this past weekend’s raids didn’t actually happen in the scale expected.). Does it mean that all the focus on the border is simply for show?  Does it mean Trump isn’t worried about legal immigrants as he says, just undocumented ones?  Does it mean Democrats ought to acknowledge the many people flying in legally?  Probably all those questions are more complicated than yes/no answers could cover.  Clearly the treatment of people seeking asylum on the border is outrageous and easily preventable if the Trump administration cared at all.  But there’s also a high level of incompetence in the administration, and most likely the contractors for the camps are making a fortune.  

But what happens next?  Are things going to return to normal after the 2020 election?  

Even if the Democrats win the presidency and the Senate, I’m not sure they will.  Trump has pushed the norms of governing in the US so far beyond respect for the law, for decency, for precedents, for freedom of the press, for respect for one’s opposition, that it will be hard.  And Trump and his supporters will fight any loss in the streets and in the courts.  (Or the long shot possibility is that they will lose their steam.  But don't count on it.  They have lots of guns.)

But what if we don’t have a fair election, or a fair enough election, to get rid of Trump and the Republican majority in the Senate?  By that I mean more cyber and other propaganda from abroad and from conservative billionaires.  I mean voter suppression and hacking  voting machines.  Germans didn’t think that Hitler would last, but he meddled with the system, and the burning of the Reichstag, which many think the Nazi's instigated.  And so he stayed in power.  Trump’s majority on the Supreme Court leaves us with no guarantee that justice will be served if elections are challenged.  We already have the Florida election decision that gave Bush the election in 2000, from a less conservative court. And the court majority just recently had no objection to political gerrymandering.  

So asking about returning isn’t the silly question some might think.  And I’ve only been talking about the US.  I haven’t mentioned the catastrophe that is Alaska after Dunleavy’s vetoes weren’t overridden.  

These are dark times.  I guess the main reason to return is to fight to get my state and country back.  


[We didn't seek asylum in Lima.  We're back home.  And I know Argentina will stop dominating my brain very fast.  But it's time to more seriously and intensely work for a better Alaska and USA.]

New Steps And A Footnote

Children are still separated from their parents, Trump's doing what Nixon and all other guilty folks do - denying everything, the ADN seems to be reporting gun and traffic deaths on a daily basis, but even with that backdrop, we all have to keep on maintaining our daily lives.*

Our front steps have been commented on by friends visiting us for a number of years now.  The railing snapped off last fall and had to be welded back together.  My attempts to envision a whole new entry way kept me putting off the new steps until I had a bigger plan.  But my attempts at that have proven fruitless and so finally today the workers began taking out the old, very cracked and split up steps.

Here's what they looked like Monday.

And here are some pictures from today.

Presumably, the new steps will get put in tomorrow, and we may be able to actually use the front door again in a few days.  It's not raining hard, but it's not sunny either.  And yes, I dug up those hostas that were in front and put them in another hole for a while.

*I've made comparisons to Nazi Germany at times.  Some people reject any such comparisons as hyperbole.  But many of the steps Trump is taking to dismantle democracy ARE similar to steps Hitler took.  We aren't talking about concentration camps, but Trump's detention centers treat immigrants as though they weren't human.  The  MAGA slogan isn't much different from Hitler's call's for reviving Germany's greatness after the humiliation of losing WWI and the Versailles Agreement.   The Trump administration's attacks on the media, the callous treatment of refugees and Muslims, the lies and alternative reality we hear daily from the White House, and the stirring up of hatred and violence, all happened in the 30's in Germany.  He's creating a whole new vocabulary - Fake News, Witch Hunt, the derogatory nicknames he repeats and repeats like Crooked Hillary - as did Hitler's regime.  Hitler too was elected on a populist wave of nationalism and making Germany a great nation again.  Hitler scapegoated Jews, Trump scapegoated Muslims and immigrants.

But, there are a lot of things that make it harder from Trump to pull a Hitler.  For one, he's not nearly as smart as Hitler, who actually did build infrastructure -  the Autobahn, not a wall.  His messages were more focused and consistent.  And the power was centered in Berlin.

Our advantage is states having much more independence from DC than German states had from Berlin.  The various state lawsuits against various Trump policies are examples of this. For me right now, fixing the steps is something that still makes sense.  That wasn't the case for my grandparents in the 1930's in Germany.  So in that sense, things are very different.  For me at least.  For immigrants with uncertain status, repairing steps is probably not something they are thinking about.

Looking At Media Past and Future - Ron Rosenbaum and Journalism After Snowden

[NOTE: This post began focused on the folly of not preventing disaster, an idea I've been toying with for a while as I try to make the point that while we will eventually get past Trump, it's going to cost us enormously, and the wounds will never completely go way.  The opening of Rosenbaum's piece seemed a good opportunity to make the point, but as I wrote, the issues of journalism under suppression became a more important focus.  Thus you get this post which goes in two different directions.  Sorry.]

Prevention has been part of American tradition since this country was founded.  

Ben Franklin, arguing for the creation of a fire department in Philadelphia wrote that "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

We have lots of similar maxims, like "Shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted" and " A stitch in time saves nine."

Fram oil filters ran a very popular ad where the oil filter dealer says, "You can me pay now" and then the mechanic says, "or pay me later."

Image from Smokey Bear history

Smokey the Bear has been telling people since the 1950s that "Only you can prevent forest fires."

The point of all of them is that preventing a disaster from happening is MUCH less costly than repairing the damage afterwards.

Not preventing Trump's election is going to cost Americans and the world a great deal of suffering and pain, emotional, physical, and financial.

So I was a little disturbed by the opening of this LABook Review piece by Ron Rosenbaum, journalist and author of Explaining Hitler, when he wrote that he'd refused requests to write about Trump, until after Trump won the election.  I understand people's reluctance to use Hitler comparisons and I'm not saying that his words would have prevented Trump from being elected, but he, of all people, knew what had happened in the past.  He explains that he simply did not see Trump at the same level as Hitler.

Hitler’s method was to lie until he got what he wanted, by which point it was too late. At first, he pledged no territorial demands. Then he quietly rolled his tanks into the Rhineland. He had no designs on Czechoslovakia — just the Sudetenland, because so many of its German-born citizens were begging him to help shelter them from persecution. But soon came the absorption of the rest of Czechoslovakia. After Czechoslovakia, he’d be satisfied. Europe could return to normal. Lie! 

There is, of course, no comparison with Trump in terms of scale. His biggest policy decisions so far have been to name reprehensible figures to various cabinet posts and to enact dreadful executive orders. But this, too, is a form of destruction. While marchers and the courts have put up a fight after the Muslim ban, each new act, each new lie, accepted by default, seems less outrageous. Let’s call it what it is: defining mendacity down.

But the article is definitely worth reading.  It mainly chronicles how the Munich Post was the first and main newspaper to expose Hitler's past and plans.   The article is a cry, now, for people to defend the media against attacks from Trump, and the likelihood that Trump will try to shut opposition media down.

His final words about the Munich Post are not reassuring.  But his appeal to the reader is important.

"The Munich Post lost, yes. Soon their office was closed. Some of the journalists ended up in Dachau, some “disappeared.” But they’d won a victory for truth. A victory over normalization. They never stopped fighting the lies, big and small, and left a record of defiance that was heroic and inspirational. They discovered the truth about “endlösung” before most could have even imagined it. The truth is always worth knowing. Support your local journalist." (emphasis added)

A more forward looking view of journalism comes in a new book, Emily Bell and Taylor Owen's (eds) Journalism After Snowden: The Future of the Free Press in the Surveillance State.  Neiman Reports reviewer Clay Shirky says the book argues that the globalization of media means that reporters can get around local suppression by getting their stories into publications outside their national boundaries.  In this quote Shirky is discussing an article in the edited book that Shirky wrote himself:

"The potential for a global news network has existed for a few decades, but its practical implementation is unfolding in ours. This normalization of transnational reporting networks reduces the risk of what engineers call a “single point of failure.” As we saw with Bill Keller’s craven decision not to publish James Risen’s work on the National Security Agency in 2004, neither the importance of a piece of political news nor its existence as a scoop is enough to guarantee that that it will actually see the light of day. The global part is driven by the need for leakers to move their materials outside national jurisdictions. The network part is driven by the advantages of having more than one organization with a stake in publication."

A key message I get from this review of the book is that suppression of the media is much bigger than Trump, and the media is discovering ways around state censorship through the development of international media networks.

"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It." BUT How To Use It Right?

People can use the bible to support slavery (and oppose it.)  Or justify male domination over women.  Until Luther, the quote about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, was used to condemn the rich until Luther made being wealthy godly.

And so with learning from history.  We can learn the wrong thing if we choose the wrong event, or interpret it inappropriately for today's situation.   People, including myself, have made comparisons between what is happening in the US now with the rise of the Third Reich in Germany.  There are areas where comparisons are justified - such as how to use the media for propaganda.  We can learn something useful today about that.  But that doesn't mean that the writer thinks Trump is going to copy everything else Hitler did, like set up concentration camps, as some people assume.

I got to thinking about this when I read a passage about Hitler's plundering of art and jewels the other day.

Sergeant Major von Rumpel is a gemologist in Anthony Doerr's All The Light One Cannot See.  

"Because of the war [WWII], his job has expanded.  Now Sergeant Major von Rumpel has the chance to do what no one has done in centuries - not since the Mogul Dynasty, not since the Khans.  Perhaps not in history.  The capitulation of France is only weeks past, and already he has seen things he did not dream he would see in six lifetimes.  A seventeenth-century globe as big around as a small car, with rubies to mark volcanoes, sapphires clustered at the poles, and diamonds for world capitals. He has held - held! - a dagger handle at least four hundred years old, made of white jade and inlaid with emeralds.  Just yesterday, on the road to Vienna, he took possession of a five-hundred-and-seventy-piece china set with a single marquise-cut diamond set into the rim of every single dish.  Where the police confiscated these treasures and from whom, he does not ask. . .
"Rumor is that the führer is compiling a wish list of precious objects from all around Europe and Russia.  They say he intends to remake the Austrian town of Linz into an empyrean city, the cultural capital of the world. . .
"The document is real, von Rumpel has heard.  Four hundred pages." [emphasis added]

While All the Light One Cannot See is fiction, Hitler's plan for museum in Linz was real.  And the plundering of art and other valuables was real.

I don't see Trump with plans to plunder art, but it would probably  be safe to say he has his eye on prime real estate around the world for Trump hotels and towers.   His website shows fourteen Trump hotels, half of which are in the US. That leaves lots of countries without Trump hotels yet.  The Washington Post, for example, says he'd like 20 - 30 in China alone.  

As president of the US, he won't have have to steal them, he can just trade American favors for them.  "Sure, we can sell you some jets.  That means jobs for Americans and, I'd sure like that historic castle to be a Trump hotel."

I'd note that Wikipedia says that Hitler didn't steal everything he collected.  He sent one of his art experts

"on trips to Italy and France to buy artworks, which Hitler paid for with his own money, which came from sales of Mein Kampf, real estate speculation on land in the area of the Berghof, Hitler's mountain retreat on the Obersalzberg, and royalties from Hitler's image used on postage stamps.[28] The latter, which was divided with his official photographer Heinrich Hoffmann, amounted to at least $75 million marks over the course of Hitler's reign.[29]
This, however, was not the primary method used to build up the collection."

Did you skip over that quote?  If you did, you missed the part about him getting royalties from having his image on postage stamps!  Wow. Trump's picture on forever stamps.  With him getting royalties for each stamp.  Now that's something to look forward to.

Stand Strong And Protect Those For Whom Trump Comes First . . .

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

About the author:

"Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, despite his ardent nationalism. Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out...”

There are a lot of parallels to the rise of Trump and the rise of Hitler.  There are probably a lot of parallels between Trump's rise and other less notorious authoritarians which may be closer fits.   But it's the one comparison I know best.  And it's probably been better documented than others. And there are a lot of similarities    From History place:

"Adolf Hitler and the Nazis waged a modern whirlwind campaign in 1930 unlike anything ever seen in Germany. . . . Hitler offered something to everyone: work to the unemployed; prosperity to failed business people; profits to industry; expansion to the Army; social harmony and an end of class distinctions to idealistic young students; and restoration of German glory to those in despair. He promised to bring order amid chaos; a feeling of unity to all and the chance to belong. He would make Germany strong again; end payment of war reparations to the Allies; tear up the treaty of Versailles; stamp out corruption; keep down Marxism; and deal harshly with the Jews."

One only has to substitute the date and the names - US for Germany, 2016 for 1930,  payments to NATO for war reparations to the Allies, NAFTA, TPP, and Climate Treaty for treaty of Versailles,  Muslims for Jews,  and this would read like a description of Trump.

But there are also differences.  One is that Hitler's Germany had a centralized government.  American   states have a lot of independence from Washington and states' rights has been a traditional Republican value.

Another difference is that we know what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.  There are still some people alive who experienced it.  The example is still in our memories.   And we have lots of documentary evidence of what happened and how.

Americans would do well to reflect on the Niemöller quote.

The campaign has already targeted Muslims and immigrants, and people close to Trump are associated with white nationalism.  Trump's grandfather was arrested at a KKK and Fascist rally in 1927.  So these values aren't alien to the Trump family.

Those of us who believe in the rule of law, in decency and tolerance for human beings of all races and religions, have good reason to stand up for those targeted by the Trump administration.  If not for altruistic purposes, then to protect yourself and your family when the first targets - it would appear they'll be Muslims and immigrants -  have been dispatched.   We need to reach out and embrace these groups and resist Trump's attempts to target groups of people based not on what individuals have done, but based on assumptions about the guilt of the groups.

One immediate effort Americans can make is to invite Muslims and immigrant families to their Thanksgiving dinner.  Or find out where there will be community dinners where you can help out. Show them your support.  Get to know them and let them know you.  Connect so that if and when Trump moves to disrupt their lives, you will know and you will support them, and resist the kind of things that happened not only in Germany, but in the US with the internment camps for the Japanese.

It's time for good, loyal Americans to speak up.

I hope that those of us who fear the worst are totally wrong.  But Hitler's rise to power was as surprising in its time as Trump's rise is now.  People dismissed his most extreme views and focused on the positive things he promised - the jobs, the renewed glory of German people.  We have that example relatively fresh in our history.  Let's not let it repeat itself today.  When Germany was eventually defeated in WW II, the United States assumed the role of the leading country in the world.   Today, the most powerful countries in the world ready to take the place of the US on the world stage are Russia and China.

Musings On The Trashing Of Clinton

Let's see, Hillary Clinton is corrupt.  We know this because every time Trump tweets her name he puts "Corrupt" before her name.

STOP!  I've been thinking about a post for the last couple of weeks.  One that would basically say, "Why all this fuss about Clinton's email?  First it was Benghazi, now it's email?  Why do so many people say she's corrupt in polls?  Duh.  Cause Trump keeps tweeting 'corrupt Hillary'.  Over and over and over and over again.

Email?  Give me a break.  She used a private email account.  OK.  That's what they have.  No intention.  No leaks that caused any harm.  Now, I'm all about following the law and all that, but no one gets to the presidential candidate level without leaving a trail.

And I think about how in 2004 the contest was between a Vietnam war hero and a draft dodger, and the Republicans managed to smear the hero with the Swiftboat campaign, and they're trying to do something similar with Clinton.  And they've managed to get the corrupt word stuck to her.

BREAK.  New thought.
There was a tweet I saw the other day:

My gurl headed to #juneau just walked past 4 senators in 1st class and then sees our governor in coach. #OfCourse. #Akleg

15 retweets26 likes

I responded.  Something like:  if you have enough mileage, they bump you up to first class for price of coach.

Others responded:  Agreed, but appearances matter. 

I added:  Appearances are important, but getting below the surface is more important.

The original tweeter responded:  Oh Gurl, I know how upgrades work but take it from someone who used to sing in malls, appearances matter.

0 retweets0 likes

Yes, appearances matter.  So, were the 4 senators in first class because they  paid for first class with state money?  Or they've flown enough that they get bumped up to first class when there are seats available?  And did the governor get bumped up to first class, but chose, for appearances, to stay in coach?  

The answer is, I guess, it doesn't matter,  Appearances matter.  

BACK TO CLINTON.  

So, I'm thinking, yeah, appearances do matter, and Clinton's team know what happened to Kerry in 2004.  They're attacking Trump regularly.  

The campaign has become attack, attack, attack.  Everyone loses in that kind of campaign.  I'm still thinking about how 'corrupt' has become attached to Hillary.  Is it because Sanders and Trump are changing the rules of the campaign and so the old ways, where politicians' compromises necessary to get to the top were basically ignored or seen as business as usual?  Or because Clinton's a woman and so she's held to a higher standard than men?   Or that Trump's 'corrupt Hillary' campaign is working?  Or a combination of all three?  

NEW SIDETRACK.

I google:  If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth.  (I'm assuming you can see the connection between this thought and Trump's 'corrupt Hillary' tweet campaign.)

It gets me to a post on "Goebbels quotes."   Whoa.  I didn't mean to get to Nazi stuff.  Everyone freaks out when you reference Nazis as though you are saying "X is a Nazi."   

What do I do now?  I read the post.  At the bottom:

Misattributed[edit] The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. 

Actually from "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler 

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself. 

Attributed to Goebbels in Publications Relating to Various Aspects of Communism (1946), by United States Congress, House Committee on Un-American Activities, Issues 1-15, p. 19, no reliable source has been located, and this is probably simply a further variation of the Big Lie idea
Variants:
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth.
If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
Attributed in "The Sack of Rome" by Alexander Stille, p. 14, and also attributed in "A World Without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance" (2003) by Mike Moore, p. 63

What does that all mean?  That it's in Mein Kampf?  That it's really from "The Sack of Rome"?

So, reluctantly I google:  Mein Kampf volume 1 chapter 6 which gets me here.
So I search for "lie " in chapter 6.  And I get some stuff. The chapter is titled "War Propaganda" and discusses how English war propaganda in WW I was so much better than German propaganda.  But how do I know the translation is any good?  So I search for Mein Kampf in German.  (I studied in Germany for a year at the time when overseas students had to take all their classes in the local language.  My German's not great, but it's good enough, especially with all the online help these days, to see if the translation is accurate.)

Das Volk ist in seiner überwiegenden Mehrheit so feminin veranlagt und eingestellt, daß weniger nüchterne Überlegung als vielmehr gefühlsmäßige Empfindung sein Denken und Handeln bestimmt. 

The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning.

Is the translation any good?  It's amazingly good.  Not because it's a literal translation - which would make little sense in English - but because it takes the meaning and renders it in good clean English.  I checked the next couple of paragraphs, and it stayed good.

Diese Empfindung aber ist nicht kompliziert, sondern sehr einfach und geschlossen. Sie gibt hierbei nicht viel Differenzierungen, sondern ein Positiv oder ein Negativ, Liebe oder Haß, Recht oder Unrecht, Wahrheit oder Lüge, niemals aber halb so und halb so oder teilweise usw. Das alles hat besonders die englische Propaganda in der wahrhaft genialsten Weise verstanden – und berücksichtigt. Dort gab es wirklich keine Halbheiten, die etwa zu Zweifeln hätten anregen können. 

This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly that. English propaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and put what they understood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might have given rise to some doubt. 

Das Zeichen für die glänzende Kenntnis der Primitivität der Empfindung der breiten Masse lag in der diesem Zustande angepaßten Greuelpropaganda, die in ebenso rücksichtsloser wie genialer Art die Vorbedingungen für das moralische Standhalten an der Front sicherte, selbst bei größten tatsächlichen Niederlagen, sowie weiter in der ebenso schlagenden Festnagelung des deutschen Feindes als des allein schuldigen Teils am Ausbruch des Krieges: eine Lüge, die nur durch die unbedingte, freche, einseitige Sturheit, mit der sie vorgetragen wurde, der gefühlsmäßigen, immer extremen Einstellung des großen Volkes Rechnung trug und deshalb auch geglaubt wurde. 

Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats. Further, the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsible for the war – which was a brutal and absolute falsehood – and the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed. The effectiveness of this kind of propaganda is well illustrated by the fact that after four-and-a-half years, not only was the enemy still carrying on his propagandist work, but it was already undermining the stamina of our people at home.

So, you're asking, where is the stuff about lies becoming truth?  It's a ways below.  First there is the discussion of what the Germans did wrong in WW 1.  They were too even handed, not simplistic enough, too logical.  Needed experts to do this, but we left it to 'feckless statesmen' and 'placid aesthetes and intellectuals.'

Its [propaganda's] chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.  [emphasis added]
Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. In this way alone can propaganda be consistent and dynamic in its effects. Only by following these general lines and sticking to them steadfastly, with uniform and concise emphasis, can final success be reached. Then one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a persistent policy secures.

The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.

The lies?  Well, it's never exactly said that way.  But the key is to repeat the simple black and white message.  The closest it comes is the last sentence below:

In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.

The last two sentences, this time in the original again.

Sie war im Anfang scheinbar verrückt in der Frechheit ihrer Behauptungen, wurde später unangenehmundward endlich geglaubt.

CAN HE NOW PULL THIS ALL TOGETHER? 

As much as people want to blame social media like Twitter for the simplistic way many voters think, and the effectiveness of constantly repeating a message until it goes from 'idiotic' to 'believed,'  these tactics are not new.  Hitler claims these means were used by the British in WW I to rally its people and troops on to victory.

My sense is that the fuss about Hillary's emails is simply Swiftboating.  Most people understand something simple like using a private email account versus the government account.  But I think in the end it might backfire on the Republicans.  Most people know that they slip between their work and private accounts all the time.  They know that keeping up with the constantly changing technology leaves most folks vulnerable to screwing up.

Two of the key pit bulls attacking Clinton appear to have their own private/public email issues.  Or is this just the Clinton team hitting back?  And even the attorney whose client successfully sued the Palin administration for her use of private email accounts to prevent the public from seeing all her emails via public records requests, is having some second thoughts about whether the public should see every email.

Appearances matter, true.  But life isn't simple.  Getting past superficialities may be difficult with 140 characters, but I think it's still important.  And writing about the complexities helps one understand them and how to focus in on the most important aspects.  Ultimately, we probably make the biggest impact by doing what we're best suited for.  In my case, appearances are there to be questioned and examined.  And as I do that, I can't imagine the email attacks on Clinton are about serious stuff, but rather are mudslinging attempts to tear her down. The focus on the emails shows how little they have (or are they saving the serious stuff for October?)  Calling her the most corrupt candidate in history is sheer propaganda, and Trump does stay on message.  And already that idea, for many, according to the polls, has gone from 'idiotic' to 'disturbing', and by November could become 'believed.'

Death of the Adversary

"The papers published in this volume were given to me some time after the war by a Dutch lawyer in Amersterdam."

So begins Death of the Adversary.

The narrator asks some questions but the Dutch lawyer is evasive.  We learn the papers are written in German. A page and a half later, we're reading the papers themselves.

"For days and weeks now I have thought of nothing but death.  Though I am normally a late riser, I get up early every morning now, calm and uplifted, after a night of dreamless sleep." 

I was having trouble at this point, but the book was supposed to be a masterpiece.  My mother had alerted me to an LA Times obituary of the author Hans Keilson who died this past June at age 101.   

"Hans Keilson was a newly minted physician in the mid-1930s when the persecution began. As a Jew in Hitler's Germany, he was stripped of the right to practice medicine. A writer, he soon lost that identity too: His autobiographical first novel was pulped soon after it was released because of a Nazi ban on Jewish writers.

"He fled to the Netherlands, where he wrote the beginnings of two more novels and buried the pages in his garden. After the war's end, in 1945, he dug them up and finished them. "Comedy in a Minor Key," a darkly humorous story set in Nazi-occupied Holland, was published in Germany in 1947, the same year as Anne Frank's diary. The second, more philosophical work, "The Death of the Adversary," earned enthusiastic reviews when it was published in America in 1962.

"That was the last that American audiences heard of Keilson — until last year. After five decades of literary obscurity, he landed on bestseller lists when both books were published again. It was a miracle of literary reclamation all the more remarkable because the long-forgotten author had lived long enough to witness his rediscovery."

Fortunately, Loussac had a copy.  The book is about a man whose life is dominated by his enemy whom he learns about overhearing his parents talking.

My enemy - I refer to him as B. - entered my life about twenty years ago.  At that time I had only a very vague idea of what it meant to be someone's enemy;  still less did I realize what it was to have an enemy.  One has to mature gradually towards one's enemy as towards one's best friend.

I frequently heard Father and Mother talk about this subject, mostly in the secretive, whispering voice of grown-ups who do not want the children to hear.  A new kind of intimacy informed their words.  They were talking in order to hide something.  But children quickly learn to divine the secrets and fears of their elders, and to grow up towards them.  My father said:




"If B. should ever come to power, may God have mercy on us.  Then things will start to happen."
My mother replied more quietly, "Who knows, perhaps everything will come out quite differently.  He's not all that important, yet."

This book mixes abstract ideas of the nature of 'the enemy' and the relationship between adversaries and very concrete detailed incidents as he grows up and learns more about the enemy.  He's excluded by classmates, he meets others with the same enemy,  he runs into the enemy in the flesh on two occasions. 

He never mentions Hitler or Jews by name.  It's all sort of vague.  It took a while for me, reading it, to figure out this was not some personal family adversary.

At the end, when the narrator is returning the papers to the Dutch lawyer who says,

"I received them from the author with the assurance that they contained not a single word that could endanger me, if I kept them."
"Did you believe him?"
"In the beginning, yes, but that was before I had read them.  Later I did read them."
"And then?"
"Then I buried them. . ."

What struck me throughout wes the wrestling of the narrator of the text (rather than the narrator of the intro) with his relationship with the adversary.  First it was understanding what it meant to have an adversary.  Then there was the denial of the serious impact the adversary would have on his life.  Here's an example of fellow victim of the adversary who feels he's being too complacent:

"At bottom you know as well as I where you belong, nor do I believe that you are rebelling against it.  That's not what worries you.  What you're after is something impossible:  you are trying to plaster up the crack that runs through this world, so that it becomes invisible;  then, perhaps, you'll think that it doesn't exist any more.  You are right in the centre of a happening and are trying to render an account of it to yourself, and at the same time to alter the situation so as to allow you to extricate yourself from it with a single leap and to look at it from the point of view of the man in the moon.  You're trying to look at something that concerns you as though it both concerned and did not concern you.  Am I right?"

Today we are all struggling with the adversary.  People are denying reality, trying to either maintain their life as it has always been, or trying to analyze it abstractly and objectively.  We do this with the crashing economy.  We do this with politics.   Some take things seriously and act.  Others carry on as though  things will just pass. Jews in Nazi Germany - the most scientifically and  technically advanced nation in the world at the time - responded in many different ways.  Some realized the danger and got out if they could.  Others thought it would pass and things would return to normal.    The book gives a very intense, and from what I can tell, pretty much contemporary account of the mental processes people struggled with. 

"Self-deception is the pleasantest form of lying.  It is a panacea for all personal ills and injuries, it can heal even metaphysical wounds.  The experience with my friend had been a hard blow, of course, [A good friend had declared his allegiance to the enemy and their friendship ended] but it had not brought me to my knees.  On the contrary.  This first and severe disappointment had strengthened me and prepared me for all the future ones.  I no longer confronted them unprepared.  Had my loss not brought me a gain, or was this the beginning of self-deception?"

I think this is an eternal dilemma.  How does one know when there is imminent and serious danger and when it's no big deal?  While Tea Party members seem to be certain they must act now, and ruthlessly, to prevent the US from collapse, so too there are those who see the Tea Party as being manipulated by rich conspirators who are the greatest threat to American democracy.

And in the land that Keilson wrote about there was a similar sort of dichotomy.  Many Germans were spellbound by Hitler's charisma and demonizing of Jews, Socialists, and others.  It wasn't till many people died - not just those who died in concentration camps, but also those who died on the battlefield - that the bubble burst and they recognized they had been deceived.  Though there were many who continued (continue) to believe in Hitler.